EVE Search - Webs need to be brought up to SPEED

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Webs need to be brought up to SPEED

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.22 06:35:00 - [1] Webbies are outdated. With the introduction of t2 disruptors, overheating and the fact that nanos are not going to get nerfed, fitting a web is pointless atm. Before overheating and t2 disruptors you had orbit at UNDER 20km, now its out to 23km orbit(27km overheated). Webs when overheated reach 13km (domi 19.4k), its just not enough, the game has outgrown webs as they currently are. For the sake of my argument/ideas, I would like anyone countering or opposed to this to use these guidelines. Take any ship under BC class besides the obvious hugin/rapier/hyenna. Whatever ship you pick set one version up as a nanno and the other, well.. ANY way you want to counter the nano, and by counter I mean kill in one v one. So if its a zealot for example, one nano, the other how ever you choose. Im aware that their are ships with web bonuses designed to use webs out past orbiting range and any of the following ideas wont take away their roles, only enhance them worst case. 1) Scripts, range and % of webbing 2) Rigs, range and % of webbing 3) Skills, to extend web range, activation cost, % of webbing 4) drastically increase the overheating range, triple the bonus Any and all of these suggestions would make one v one vialble again. As it is now, a ship cannot kill its nanno varient of itself. If I were to say, fit a tank zealot with the specific goal to KILL a nano vairant of the zealot, I might be able to make him dissengage and warp, but *catching and killing* him is hopeless. The natural setup would include a web, which SHOULD negate the nanno, but it will NEVER reach him ATM, even the best faction, overheated. Thats broken. My suggestions would not harm eve, nanno would not dissapear, they just wouldnt be mortal. CCp nerfed WCS because they SAID they wanted a player to have to 'commit' to a fight, and I agree. The counters to nannos should be available on any ship with the right skills and mods fitted. A player who fits a web to counter nanos SHOULD be able to well.... counter nannos, dontcha think? To sum up I want to stress that I am not anti nanno, I think they are a great addition to the game and in no way would I like to see them nerfed. I just think that the 'gap' is growing too great between nannos and the intended solo counters. Whenever you NEED a specific ship or group of ships, or a battleship sized neut to counter ONE cruiser, something has to be done.
Nikita Alterana	Posted - 2008.06.22 06:45:00 - [2] yes. definitely yes. however, I think there should be some drawbacks to webs, because to be able to destroy an expensively fit ship with one relatively cheap module is rather imbalanced in itself. There are nano-ships, there should be anti-nano-ships. but just being able to stick on a better web would make any nano ship including interceptors completely useless. could it be...wait...it is! could we finally have found a purpose for the destroyer?! __________________________________________________
JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.22 06:58:00 - [3] Edited by: JVol on 22/06/2008 07:05:04 The expence of nanos should have ZERO bearing on how effective webs are. CCP increased minumum required orbiting ranges with t2 disruptors (and overheating).Its like webs got left behind. Besides, a tank varient could be more expencive than the nano, it means NOTHING. The fact that you would have to train more skills for web range, or specialize your ship with 'web rigs' and fit it for anti nano should mean that yes, intys too would die at your hands, but so what? To do so you would be sacrificing any other nich you could setup for.
Nikita Alterana	Posted - 2008.06.22 07:06:00 - [4] yes but if nano can be countered by ANY ship using ONE module, it will make nanoing completely useless. __________________________________________________
JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.22 07:19:00 - [5] Edited by: JVol on 22/06/2008 07:21:09 Originally by: Nikita Alterana yes but if nano can be countered by ANY ship using ONE module, it will make nanoing completely useless. Are you serious? WEBS ARE SUPPOSED TO COUNTER NANNOS!!!! lol And btw, I also feel that neuts could use some love as well, same ideas I gave for webs, skills,overheating range bonus and scripts for range would ALSO help close the gap that t2 disruptors and overheating have caused making nanos untouchable to the same ship UN nannoed.
Joe Starbreaker Starbreaker Frigateers	Posted - 2008.06.22 07:53:00 - [6] Originally by: JVol For the sake of my argument/ideas, I would like anyone countering or opposed to this to use these guidelines. Take any ship under BC class besides the obvious hugin/rapier/hyenna. Whatever ship you pick set one version up as a nanno and the other, well.. ANY way you want to counter the nano, and by counter I mean kill in one v one. So if its a zealot for example, one nano, the other how ever you choose. Stop wasting our time. For the sake of my argument/ideas, I hereby impose the following requirement on your subsequent replies: You must offer up a nanoship fitting that can destroy any other ship (other than the huginn/rapier/hyena) with any fitting in one-v-one and can defeat any fleet with any amount of preparation. This will serve as proof that nano-ships are broken. . Seeking frigateers!
JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.22 08:07:00 - [7] Originally by: Joe Starbreaker Originally by: JVol For the sake of my argument/ideas, I would like anyone countering or opposed to this to use these guidelines. Take any ship under BC class besides the obvious hugin/rapier/hyenna. Whatever ship you pick set one version up as a nanno and the other, well.. ANY way you want to counter the nano, and by counter I mean kill in one v one. So if its a zealot for example, one nano, the other how ever you choose. Stop wasting our time. For the sake of my argument/ideas, I hereby impose the following requirement on your subsequent replies: You must offer up a nanoship fitting that can destroy any other ship (other than the huginn/rapier/hyena) with any fitting in one-v-one and can defeat any fleet with any amount of preparation. This will serve as proof that nano-ships are broken. Can we get a moderator to remove this please? Its just agrumentive and offers nothing positive to the thread. thank you.
Joe Starbreaker Starbreaker Frigateers	Posted - 2008.06.22 08:45:00 - [8] You're an idiot. My post was mocking yours. You do not win a debate by placing rules on those who would argue against you, saying "Anyone countering or opposed to this must prove X, Y, and Z irrelevant items." Nano works fine, it does not beat everything, there are counters to it. Heavy neuts, for example, and Minmatar recons. Your argument is based on the fact that there are ships that nanos can beat (e.g. frigates and cruisers, that are caught alone, away from sentry guns, which are not Huggins or Rapiers) and you want these ships to be able to beat nanos. If nanos could beat any ship or fleet, they would be unbalanced. Similarly, if every ship and fleet can beat nanos, then the module that allows this to happen is unbalanced. . Seeking frigateers!
Najri DEATH'S LEGION	Posted - 2008.06.22 09:14:00 - [9] Edited by: Najri on 22/06/2008 09:15:38 the 10km basic range on webs is obscolete and should be increased slightly. To balance nano(-abuse) a new module should be available; the webbifying-PULSE smartbomb <--30km range smartbomb puts any ship to a near stop instantly for the duration of its cycle (does not permanently disable mwd nor do any dmg)
Kyusoath Orillian Viziam	Posted - 2008.06.22 12:16:00 - [10] Originally by: Najri Edited by: Najri on 22/06/2008 09:20:05 the 10km basic range on webs is obscolete and should be increased slightly. ............ Btw it is NOT balanced that you need ONE particular race of T2 ships to counter all races nano(abuse)-setups /agree
Indigosi	Posted - 2008.06.22 12:38:00 - [11] Originally by: Nikita Alterana There are nano-ships, there should be anti-nano-ships. heard of rapier ? :P but i agree, the web range should get increased a bit.. or, maby a new type ? like Long Range Webs ? that got 20km range, but only 50% speed reduction ?
willschn794	Posted - 2008.06.22 14:13:00 - [12] Yes, the web's 10km rang eis obsolete, needs boosting to 13 minimum.
JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.22 15:30:00 - [13] Originally by: Joe Starbreaker You're an idiot. My post was mocking yours. You do not win a debate by placing rules on those who would argue against you, saying "Anyone countering or opposed to this must prove X, Y, and Z irrelevant items." Nano works fine, it does not beat everything, there are counters to it. Heavy neuts, for example, and Minmatar recons. Your argument is based on the fact that there are ships that nanos can beat (e.g. frigates and cruisers, that are caught alone, away from sentry guns, which are not Huggins or Rapiers) and you want these ships to be able to beat nanos. If nanos could beat any ship or fleet, they would be unbalanced. Similarly, if every ship and fleet can beat nanos, then the module that allows this to happen is unbalanced. Im aware you were mocking me, and Im aware you've decided to call me names as opposed to yet again, staying on topic. You clearly dont get the point Im making, and thats ok, any moron can post here and your continued posts prove that. There is one module that is made to beat nanos, its called a web. The purpose of this post is to discuss the pro's and cons of updating webs to actually do what they were intended to do, catch fast ships so you can kill them, period. Overheating bonus of disruptors and the base range thay have moved orbiting distances out too far THAT IS WHAT THIS POST IS ABOUT, either stay on topic or STFU. My suggestions wouldnt kill your precious nanos, just keep them in check, as they are clearly out of whack, and everyone who genuinely loves this game knows it. You have ignored the perameters I set forth becasue HAD you stuck to them, you wouldnt have a leg to stand on, and its clear as hell to everyone reading your posts. In a cruiser one vs one the guy who is using the nano basically is allowed to bring a gun to a knife fight.
EadTaes Veni Vidi Vici. XIII Legio	Posted - 2008.06.22 15:45:00 - [14] The simplest and best way to fix it is just to add a deceleration to the webber in addition to resetting the new max speed. Nanos are going to fast right now that when you do web them they simply cruise on inertia out of webbing range. So just having the webber affect the deceleration attributes in addition tot eh max speed it would make it possible to catch nanos. As for getting into webrange is up to you skills and you strategy. 0.0 Policing, Econnomic Control & NPC Agents
Del Narveux Dukes of Hazard	Posted - 2008.06.22 17:04:00 - [15] I have mixed feelings on boosting web range, because it would also mess with frigs/inties which are actually supposed to be really fast, and would make AB even less useful for PVP than it already is. So instead I suggest a module with around 30km range + overheat bonus, that increases the mass of the affected ship. Nanos rely heavily on having really low mass, so this will hurt them enough that more conventional tactics become viable, just like ECCM, boosters, etc. counter various types of ewar. This bonus, like everything else, should scale with the target's sigradius somehow, again so inties and non-MWDs arent as heavily affected. As has been said, the existence of rapier/hugglesis not a valid anti-nano, thats like saying only falcon and rook should be able to fit ECM/ECCM. _________________ [IMAGE REMOVED] -- aka Cpt Bogus -- Is that my torped sig cloaking your base?
VJ Maverick Splinter Cell Alfa	Posted - 2008.06.22 17:49:00 - [16] Any boost to webs will simply proliferate the "arms race" between speed and web. Both of these are already completely out of control, reducing PvP to only TWO tactical considerations: either trying to web or trying to avoid being webbed. Telling your girlfriend that you play EvE is like telling her about your herpes. Timing is everything.
Najri DEATH'S LEGION	Posted - 2008.06.22 20:06:00 - [17] Edited by: Najri on 22/06/2008 20:06:55 Originally by: Del Narveux I have mixed feelings on boosting web range, because it would also mess with frigs/inties which are actually supposed to be really fast, and would make AB even less useful for PVP than it already is. So instead I suggest a module with around 30km range + overheat bonus, that increases the mass of the affected ship. Nanos rely heavily on having really low mass, so this will hurt them enough that more conventional tactics become viable, just like ECCM, boosters, etc. counter various types of ewar. This bonus, like everything else, should scale with the target's sigradius somehow, again so inties and non-MWDs arent as heavily affected. As has been said, the existence of rapier/hugglesis not a valid anti-nano, thats like saying only falcon and rook should be able to fit ECM/ECCM. Originally by: Maverick Any boost to webs will simply proliferate the "arms race" between speed and web. Both of these are already completely out of control, reducing PvP to only TWO tactical considerations: either trying to web or trying to avoid being webbed. Yes I think you are both right the range-increase isnt the best solution, but in any case the 'arms race' on behalf of the nano should stop here and there still needs to be more balancing factors added. Only one race of webbonus-ships is the most obvious problem, this could be solved with such a 30km weapon as mentionned above, I emphasise the special smartbomb-idea (instead of decreasing a ships velocity for as long as its targetted this bomb could act like a pulse weapon that increases mass of all ships in its range, for the duration of its cycle.. Also it should be impossible to activate mwd while you use this module) wich could be the most balanced solution as very light ships like frigs would still be able to get out of that range in between cycles and no other ships can reach it meanwhile Please flame to your hearts content
Twin blade The Triangle Unlimited Horizons	Posted - 2008.06.22 20:19:00 - [18] If webs get a range boost they need a Nerf to speed as i think its abit overpowerd to have a 90% web be able to hit out past 10km. I would like webs to have more range at the cost of speed it would still help counter nanos but not fully destroy the set up form the game. Death is great rember where all dying to get there.
Ignition SemperFi The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.06.22 20:25:00 - [19] Edited by: Ignition SemperFi on 22/06/2008 20:26:44 just like alot of other midslot mods it needs scripting one for webbing range and one for adding mass. Then set your default without script would be about 15k while giving it a slight boost to adding mass to a ship while unscripted. So you could change your web range with a script... 20k for a web is still not that far at all when your nanos can be at like 100k in seconds. Or knock it back to the 10k with the 'adding mass' script but if you can get it in that range his mass goes up significantly. ------ People Say Im paranoid because I have a gun, I say I dont have to be paranoid because I have a gun.
Ellaine TashMurkon CBC Interstellar	Posted - 2008.06.22 20:31:00 - [20] I'd add faloff to webifiers. If overpowered - add a special version of webifiers with faloff, maybe limited to interceptors. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal
JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.22 20:42:00 - [21] I still find it comical that SO many people are worried about the future of nanos. 'Dont increase web range cause it will get rid of nanos!' ROFL A set of skills or a script to get webs out to 20km wouldnt kill the game, it wouldnt negate specialty ships that web out to 40-60km, it wouldnt make intys obsolete either. Just because people CAN train it or fit doesnt mean that everyone will, and we all know that.
Bellum Eternus D00M.	Posted - 2008.06.22 21:35:00 - [22] Originally by: JVol Webbies are outdated. <snip> All of what you say will help with nanos, but it will break all other normal combat, blaster ships specifically. If blaster ships can't get within 1-2km of their target, they can't win, and all of your web suggestions break the use of blasters because opposing ships will be able to hold blaster ships at range for the duration of the fight. It is also unacceptable for the blaster ship to have to MWD 10-13km while webbed 90% in order to close web range with the target while taking damage and using cap just to start dealing damage at 1-2km. Making webs more powerful to kill nano ships will just break all the existing short ranged non nano combat. The answer isn't buffing webs or changing any of the ranges or gameplay. The answer is removing all the ship setups that break the gameplay due to speed. Removing polycarbs and aux. thrusters and halving the speed increase provided by OD2s would be a perfectly acceptable start. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Marcus Gideon Excessive Force	Posted - 2008.06.22 21:54:00 - [23] Edited by: Marcus Gideon on 22/06/2008 21:54:18 There's too much argument and throwing of mud for me to bother reading this whole thread... That being said, why not help Webs by balancing the whole speed system in the first place? AB make you go faster, by providing more thrust. A Web is like a modified Tractor Beam, and slows you down by tugging and pulling. MWD make you go faster, by warping you inches ahead of yourself. A Scrambler disrupts the onboard computer and makes locking onto the destination harder. So why not leave Webs as they are, with a nice hindering effect on ships being pushed through space harder. And make Scramblers have the same effect on an MWD jumping you ahead a few meters. Even your basic Disruptor, which may or may not be useful at a Gate Camp, can affect 24km out. I think that'd be plenty of distance to zap that nasty Inty and take it out. Ideas
VJ Maverick Splinter Cell Alfa	Posted - 2008.06.23 00:50:00 - [24] Originally by: Marcus Gideon So why not leave Webs as they are, with a nice hindering effect on ships being pushed through space harder. And make Scramblers have the same effect on an MWD jumping you ahead a few meters. Even your basic Disruptor, which may or may not be useful at a Gate Camp, can affect 24km out. I think that'd be plenty of distance to zap that nasty Inty and take it out. Ideas I have been mulling over a similar idea for months. I think it has merit. Telling your girlfriend that you play EvE is like telling her about your herpes. Timing is everything.
Typhado3 Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium	Posted - 2008.06.23 00:59:00 - [25] Originally by: Nikita Alterana ...... There are nano-ships, there should be anti-nano-ships..... It's called a huggin. or you could try a claymore it give 45% bonus to webbers/scramblers with command implant. Quote: Im aware that their are ships with web bonuses designed to use webs out past orbiting range and any of the following ideas wont take away their roles, only enhance them worst case. If everyone can web you don't need minmatar webbers..... if everyone can web at 30km km then huggins webbing at 100km is pretty much a shiny useless addition.... sorta like target painters in fleet battles. Minmatar already have a poor enough line up of support ships without losing the huggin. If nano gangs are easily countered it won't just effect huggins, as most minny ships can nano are good at nano it will effect all of them and our command ships which are specialized to help nano gangs will also be fealing the nerf. Now before you say huggins have stronger webs even if other ships have good webs huggins will still rule the webs. Think about it for a second, if I can get any ship to web will I choose the huggin or another ship with just as good lock time and speed that they won't be expecting webs on..... The problem with chasing inties in a huggin right now is the moment any inty pilot sees a huggin they run (seriously I've had 10 man gangs run from me and a raven just cause of fear of huggin). Sure a cautious nano pilot may still run from your average ship if he thinks you've got webs on but it's a hell of a lot better than 100% of nano pilots running from huggins. pls note when I say huggin I mean huggin/rapier/hyena Thanks for reading to the bottom Typhado
Cpt Branko Surge. NIght's Dawn	Posted - 2008.06.23 01:07:00 - [26] Originally by: Bellum Eternus All of what you say will help with nanos, but it will break all other normal combat, blaster ships specifically. If blaster ships can't get within 1-2km of their target, they can't win, and all of your web suggestions break the use of blasters because opposing ships will be able to hold blaster ships at range for the duration of the fight. It is also unacceptable for the blaster ship to have to MWD 10-13km while webbed 90% in order to close web range with the target while taking damage and using cap just to start dealing damage at 1-2km. Making webs more powerful to kill nano ships will just break all the existing short ranged non nano combat. This. Boosting webs has a number of negative effects: (a) Greatly decreases your likelyhood to survive a camp, both by making it harder to burn back to gates and away from gates (b) makes it easier to blob a faster target, just throw a 90% 20km web and by the time he clears webrange, your buddies are there already (c) breaks all short-range boats (primarily blasterboats, but also AC boats when considered vs pulses/torps),etc. (d) breaks frigate-sized ship piloting in a bad way. Interceptors are already easy to swat out the sky. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.23 05:06:00 - [27]
Shinithra	Posted - 2008.06.23 05:39:00 - [28] Personally, I think scripts on the webber much like scripts for the Sensor Booster would be welcomed, but to keep things "sane" perhaps the two scripts could be: 1. +50% range, -50% slowdown 2. +50% slowdown, -50% range (even sensor booster scrips have drawbacks) A webber with a 15km range, should not be as effective as one used at very close range and vice versa. An addition like this would also open up some new nano tactics, like blaster frigates at very close range that can really slow down their oponent alot and yet on the flip side, battleships that may at least have a slightly better chance at killing a nano ship if it can get within that 15km range - maybe....
JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.23 05:44:00 - [29] 15km range ISNT going to cut it, orbiting ranges are out to 27km overheated....
Relicc Templars of Space	Posted - 2008.06.23 06:20:00 - [30] back in the day ships used to have an engine thrust attribute similar to sensor strength or sig radius, I think it was intended for use with web calculations...that could fix your frigate problem depending on how its used if they brought it back. Im all for some kind of web update. 07 Insurgency.
JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.23 06:25:00 - [31] Originally by: Shinithra Personally, I think scripts on the webber much like scripts for the Sensor Booster would be welcomed, but to keep things "sane" perhaps the two scripts could be: 1. +50% range, -50% slowdown 2. +50% slowdown, -50% range (even sensor booster scrips have drawbacks) A webber with a 15km range, should not be as effective as one used at very close range and vice versa. An addition like this would also open up some new nano tactics, like blaster frigates at very close range that can really slow down their oponent alot and yet on the flip side, battleships that may at least have a slightly better chance at killing a nano ship if it can get within that 15km range - maybe.... Along with the boost to web range, the % SHOULD not drop off, EVEN at 90% the crazy insane speeds allow them to coast out of web range most of the time
Duraj	Posted - 2008.06.23 06:25:00 - [32] Originally by: Nikita Alterana yes. definitely yes. however, I think there should be some drawbacks to webs, because to be able to destroy an expensively fit ship with one relatively cheap module is rather imbalanced in itself. There are nano-ships, there should be anti-nano-ships. but just being able to stick on a better web would make any nano ship including interceptors completely useless. could it be...wait...it is! could we finally have found a purpose for the destroyer?! No. I would call that balance. nanoships are expensive, but immune to other expensive toys, an inexpensive one kills them to stop their nanoing. the inexpensive toy is useless vs other more expensive toys, so its all balanced.
JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.23 06:29:00 - [33] Originally by: Duraj Originally by: Nikita Alterana yes. definitely yes. however, I think there should be some drawbacks to webs, because to be able to destroy an expensively fit ship with one relatively cheap module is rather imbalanced in itself. There are nano-ships, there should be anti-nano-ships. but just being able to stick on a better web would make any nano ship including interceptors completely useless. could it be...wait...it is! could we finally have found a purpose for the destroyer?! No. I would call that balance. nanoships are expensive, but immune to other expensive toys, an inexpensive one kills them to stop their nanoing. the inexpensive toy is useless vs other more expensive toys, so its all balanced. Isk has NOTHING TO do with balance.. Armor/sheild tanks can be crazy expencive, but a nano you cant hit, cant web and cant kill will eventually wear you down and kill you.. balence isnt anywhere in your arguments
Jeckes	Posted - 2008.06.23 06:39:00 - [34] They just need to nerf all long range guns by 50%. problem solved.
Crewman Jenkins	Posted - 2008.06.23 06:49:00 - [35] heh, long range guns are already underpowered against a short range setup
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.06.23 07:32:00 - [36] correct me if I am wrong (I will be probably :-)), please note this is how it SHOULD be, not how it is implemented atm. agility and mass both affect different things: 1. mass does affect max speed you can reach 2. agility affects your turning rate 3. inertia afffects your acceleration/decceleration ability There are a few problems with the model: 1. mass has no practical effect on anything other tham max speed 2. agility and inertia have effect on speed and direction changes without taking mass into effect The general physical rule however places some limits on all 3. The faster you go, the more energy you need to change direction or speed. So we should have a interactive system in place that works like this: 1. Mass does affect your max speed as is now, because it is limiting the effect of the addition thrust from AB/MWD. 2. Once you cross the AB level of speed, you inertia goes up and agility goes down. This means you turn slower and deccelerate slower. 3. There is a limit speed where you are not able to turn at all only reachable with MWD fitted. This means that once you go too fast, you turning ability and decceleration are getting limited to a point where you cannot turn at all and have to slow down to be able to orbit. If you get webbed, you turning ability is restored and your decceleration also. This means a 90% web will not only slow you down MORE than a 75% web but also makes you more agile AND forces you to deccelerate faster. This enables us to scale webs range by their efectivity. A 75% web can have more range than a 90% web has, becasue it has less effect on all the attributes (max speed, agility, decceleration) than a 90% web. --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
Merroki	Posted - 2008.06.23 10:15:00 - [37] No. And here's why: The problem isn't that web is not "up to speed". It isn't that Missiles are not "Up to speed" either. It's that nanos are becoming too darn fast due to the combinations of things you can now put together with flying a nano ship. Nanos are becoming faster than most of the rest of the game was designed for. This is most especially a problem with nanos, not because everything else is not "up to speed", but that the effectiveness of many modules and mechanics against nanos drop off very sharply against targets of a certain speed. For example: web. target locking. If they get out of range before you lock, you start over. Another example: missiles. At 3k/s you hit them for full damage. at 5 k/s you hit them for mostly no damage. The damage falloff mechanic never really comes into play anymore, as any nano worth their salt is past most of the falloff. Increasing one's speed from 3k/s to 5k/s is not hard at all. Another example: grid size. I'm sure the grids were not designed for ships moving 12k/s from the outset. Faster ships means faster getting off grid. While it is part of the game, this particular mechanic is highly "artificial" even in a sci-fi world.. The easiest and simplest solution is to slow down the possible nanoing, not speedup/adjust/tweak countless other modules and mechanics.
Dantes Revenge	Posted - 2008.06.23 10:56:00 - [38] JVol, one thing I want to point out is the same thing others seem to point out to me when I put ideas in here. This is a MULTIPLAYER game and you mention 1v1. What's wrong with using a team mate in an inty with a webber (or two) and a scrambler to slow down the nanoship so you can turn it into a wreck? Don't say a nanoship is faster than an inty, those days are long gone since the nano nerf a couple of years ago. The main point is that basically, nanoships are mostly armor tankers due to the greater number of low slots available. They have used all their lows to gain speed so their tank is non-existant. Slow it down with an inty and it's dead meat against almost any weapon. Even the inty itself can take it out. Webs are fine as they are. Nanoships have been around for a very long time and if webs needed to be any more powerful, they would have been changed long ago before the nano's were ever nerfed. Having much longer range webs means unarmed ships will never have a chance to get away. Ships such as mining barges and haulers will be locked, webbed and srambled well before the player can even hit warp. This change will not affect nanoships very much but it will merely increase the number of ganked miners and haulers from the current high to absolutely insane. Lowsec will become a no-fly zone for most mining operations unless accompanied by ridiculous numbers of combat ships to protect them.
Kagura Nikon Infinity Enterprises	Posted - 2008.06.23 12:18:00 - [39] Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 23/06/2008 12:20:01 You are completely and utterly WRONG! Sicne overheat was introduced keeping yourself out of web range is MUCH MUCH harder. Why? because you are in middle of a MWD cycle.. around your enemy.. at 20 km. Now he triggers his MWD with overheat. He will get and INSANELY huge speed boost. Almost for sure be faster than you and catch and web you at 13 km. You cannot counter with your own overheat because you cannot activate the overheat until the end of your current MWD cycle.. in 10 seconds! A simple t2 cruiser with 1 nano or 1 Poly can get a 60-65% speed boost with overheating. That means that a not really nanoed ship now can easily catch a nano ship trying to keep just outside web range. Ant THAt is one of the main reasons nanos are so fast nowadays. Because beign speedy is nto enough. You need to be STUPDLY fast to avoid beign caught by overheated ships. Overheat just made nano pilots overreact and go even faster. Onlymade things worse. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Tornoon	Posted - 2008.06.23 17:52:00 - [40] How actually dangerous are these ships? I know they are fricken uncatchable as you would expect from a nano ship especially if the pilot has spent half a bil on equipment and has pirate implants. tried plenty of times to catch them but never actually had 1v1's or got ganked by them yet. If you can actually catch them they pop like tin foil but if a ship was going all tank would a setup that was all speed be able to bring it down? or what if you had a mixed setup with some ew, sensor damps or tracking disruptors, how easy would it be to screw up their range so they need to come within web range. I do remember using tracking disruptor vs a nano rapier once in a tanked hauler (read trap) and aside from his drones he couldn't do anything till my backup arived. In response to op's challenge I'd like him to find a nano setup that is all speed that can kill a ship if it is setup for all tank or has a few ew range modules to bring it into web range. From what I've seen they aren't the unstoppable kill everything monsters people make them out to be unless you are fitted for all damage or pve. They do seem a bit overpowered but I'd rather see something like a nerf to multiple nano's rather than something like this that completely kills nano's (seriously if all webbers can web at 30 km with 90% range u've just killed close range combat along with a few other aspects of eve).
Merroki	Posted - 2008.06.23 19:48:00 - [41] The thing is that nanos give a tactical advantage (much superior movement), in addition to a mechanics advantage (damage evasion). Current combination of the two is pretty formidable. If they end up with either mostly one or the other (as a web/nos buff would imply), I think they would probably still get by fine because most of one and a little of the other is already good enough. When people argue pro-nano, they always seem to consider one in isolation with the other. Reality doesn't work that way. But anyways it would be much more interesting for nanos to have some of both. Just not as much, total. So super web buff = boring..
JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.23 20:00:00 - [42] I understand fully that this is a "multi player game. But answer this. Isnt a ONE v ONE "MULTI" player? I mean, its not ONE person fighting a rat, its one person fighting ANOTHER person, 2 people, = is multi.. Now if its broke from that lvl, the smallest possible lvl you can have to have to be multi players is 2, right? If it doesnt work from there then adding MORE people doesnt make it 'fixed'. One v ONE is the 'foundation' if you will, its the begining, if its broke there its broke in the end,period. I keep seeing all the counters to my OP saying '30km'? when the hell did I EVER say 30km? Never.. I think that Skills should dictate the range imo, spend 3 months more training web skills and yea, you SHOULD be able to do things with a web that other players who didnt invest the same amount of time in can do. Thats eve. Ive been an Fc longer than a good portion of eve has been playing the game. In a gang, small to large I have ZERO problems with nanos, the counters are there for a good fc to utilize, from ew to bs sized neuts,to multiple fast tacklers to hell, OTHER nanos,I GET THAT! THAT ISNT WHERE THE PROBLEM LIES... When the best faction webber in the game is relagated to 'loot' for your nano agressor because it wasnt even close to getting him ( domi overheated is ONLY 19.4km )because hes orbiting you at over 23kn-27km with JUST t2 gear!! lol. If your going to say that webs and for the sake of argument, med neuts are 'just fine' as nano counters then your not playing the same game ive been playing, and I play in 0.0, low sec AND empire. 99% of the people who keep posting here arent comparing apples to apples, they are comparing an apple to a bushell of oranges and calling it 'just fine'. The web range increase wont hurt nanos so bad that they are unplayable, they can just counter web their enemy and gtfo. Webs boats like the hugin/rapier and hyena might very well be overpowerd if they can web out to 100km, I agree, so just make my proposed web changes NOT affect them?? yup, that would work. On another note, w/ the new skills make webs and neuts have penalties to sig rad, ( saves intys from insta death ) yet still makes them good vs cruiser vs cruiser fights. I DO NOT WANT TO SEE NANOS NERFED IN ANY FREAKIN WAY!! I JUST WANT TO SEE THE GAP BETWEEN CURRENT ORBITING RANGES AND SOLO NANO COUNTERS BROUGHT TO *REALISTIC* DISTANCES.
Marcus Gideon Excessive Force	Posted - 2008.06.23 21:16:00 - [43] Originally by: Marcus Gideon ... why not help Webs by balancing the whole speed system in the first place? AB make you go faster, by providing more thrust. A Web is like a modified Tractor Beam, and slows you down by producing drag. MWD make you go faster, by warping you inches ahead of yourself. A Scrambler disrupts the onboard computer and makes locking onto the destination harder. So why not leave Webs as they are, with a nice hindering effect on ships being pushed through space harder. And make Scramblers have the same effect on an MWD jumping you ahead a few meters. Even your basic Disruptor, which may or may not be useful at a Gate Camp, can affect 24km out. I think that'd be plenty of distance to zap that nasty Inty and take it out. Ideas --- Five Green Dots - One Red Dot = Happy Drones
JVol The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.06.24 02:58:00 - [44] Originally by: Marcus Gideon Originally by: Marcus Gideon ... why not help Webs by balancing the whole speed system in the first place? AB make you go faster, by providing more thrust. A Web is like a modified Tractor Beam, and slows you down by producing drag. MWD make you go faster, by warping you inches ahead of yourself. A Scrambler disrupts the onboard computer and makes locking onto the destination harder. So why not leave Webs as they are, with a nice hindering effect on ships being pushed through space harder. And make Scramblers have the same effect on an MWD jumping you ahead a few meters. Even your basic Disruptor, which may or may not be useful at a Gate Camp, can affect 24km out. I think that'd be plenty of distance to zap that nasty Inty and take it out. Ideas [/quo Ive read this like 5 times, I still have no freakin idea what your proposing or how it has anything to do with the OP.. sry
Joe Starbreaker Starbreaker Frigateers	Posted - 2008.06.24 07:42:00 - [45] Originally by: JVol In a cruiser one vs one the guy who is using the nano basically is allowed to bring a gun to a knife fight. So what? Don't be the guy who brings a knife. Where are you finding all these one-on-one fights anyway? . Seeking frigateers!
Thirzarr	Posted - 2008.06.24 11:29:00 - [46] Nanos simply remind me of dual mwd. Period. I like the speed tho. More of that in EvE. And some effective counter that makes speed ships not able to just know by ship type if its dangerous.
Dantes Revenge	Posted - 2008.06.24 11:34:00 - [47] Originally by: JVol When the best faction webber in the game is relagated to 'loot' for your nano agressor because it wasnt even close to getting him ( domi overheated is ONLY 19.4km )because hes orbiting you at over 23kn-27km with JUST t2 gear!! lol. 99% of the people who keep posting here arent comparing apples to apples, they are comparing an apple to a bushell of oranges and calling it 'just fine'. The web range increase wont hurt nanos so bad that they are unplayable, they can just counter web their enemy and gtfo. Webs boats like the hugin/rapier and hyena might very well be overpowerd if they can web out to 100km, I agree, so just make my proposed web changes NOT affect them?? yup, that would work. On another note, w/ the new skills make webs and neuts have penalties to sig rad, ( saves intys from insta death ) yet still makes them good vs cruiser vs cruiser fights. Only points relevant to my arguement are quoted. You miss the main point of my arguement. Boost the webber to counter a nano and it makes it way overpowered V standard ships. Nano's are an extreme and you should never balance to an extreme. This serves only to make the extreme a standard as a counter to the webber Your original post is a boost to the webber and not just a counter to the nano. Adding skills to do this would simply make them a 'must have' for any serious PVPer. What will result is more cries of webbers being overpowered from users of standard ships so it becomes a vicious circle. It seems that you are the one comparing apples to oranges here. The webber is an apple and so is any standard ship in the game. The nano is an orange in this case because it is an extreme fit that majority of players do not use. Have a go at baiting nano's with a couple of corp mates. Have a couple of inties standing by while you bait the nano to attack you. When he's locked you, in come the inties, web, lock and the nano is history. Trust me, it's fun, especially when those expensive speed boosting implants go pop as well. I've even been offered big isk to let his pod go, I got the isk but, oh dear, I just couldn't call the inty off in time The only ting that will result from these posts regarding nanoships will be another nerf. As a long standing player, you should know CCP always nerfs rather than boosts things. Even the (supposed) Amarr boost was a nerf to resistances but, Amarr don't do explosive damage so what was the purpose of the explosive resist nerf? However, a boost in any way to the webber will make it overpowered. Trust me, the next forum posts if the webber is boosted as you propose will be regarding webs being too powerful and players will be calling for a MWD/AB boost to counter them.
Merroki	Posted - 2008.06.24 21:12:00 - [48] Originally by: Dantes Revenge Have a go at baiting nano's with a couple of corp mates. Have a couple of inties standing by while you bait the nano to attack you. When he's locked you, in come the inties, web, lock and the nano is history. Also, do keep in mind that this would be a 3v1 fight.
JVol Amarr The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.07.16 18:36:00 - [49] The Op is about the increased orbiting range now due to t2 disruptor range and overheating. Webs in any form are mostly useless to a nano thats able to orbit 10km OUTSIDE a t2 webbys OVERHEATED range, without even overheating its disruptor..
Ancy Denaries Caldari Under Heavy Fire	Posted - 2008.07.16 19:44:00 - [50] I'll have to agree with the "fix speed first"-crowd. Getting phatter webs isn't the solution here, since it'll break normal combat so much that it ain't funny. Instead fix the un-stacked speed bonuses of the rigs and mods that all add together to from a damn near invincible nusciance(sp?), because that's all they are. They aren't dps heavy enough to actually threaten a similar, non-nanoed fleet, and in a 1v1 situation, most ships of equal or greater size could probably outtank them, forcing them to disengage. Fix the speed, and THEN we can talk about webs.
Ekrid	Posted - 2008.07.16 20:36:00 - [51] STFU already, the devs said that speed is getting a nerf. its just not as easy as flipping a switch as you think, cause you're braindead and dont understand coding, or anything else in the world. go back to your cave, Mr. Ug.
JVol Amarr The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.07.16 21:36:00 - [52] Edited by: JVol on 16/07/2008 21:36:30 This sint as much about nanos as it is about orbiting distances.. Back in the day a faction webber had a great chance to catch an orbitng ship, he would have to orbit you at 19 and you could reach to 15, 4 km 'dead zone'. Now with overheating and t2 disruptors, its a dead zone of over 13km.. Webs need to be able to make up that distance with either rigs/scripts or overheating, regardless if its a nano or a 'regular' ship, webs are not up to par with 'new' orbiting distances. period
Endless Subversion The Accursed	Posted - 2008.07.16 22:25:00 - [53] Not supported. It's an awful idea. Webbing is already borderline broken for how insanely powerful it is, the last thing eve needs is everyone able to web at ridiculous ranges.
JVol Amarr The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.07.17 02:40:00 - [54] Originally by: Endless Subversion Not supported. It's an awful idea. Webbing is already borderline broken for how insanely powerful it is, the last thing eve needs is everyone able to web at ridiculous ranges. WTF game are YOU playing? HOW is it borderline broken? They cant reach any ship that orbits them atm? lol You have to land ONTOP of anyone you want to web currently, and even IF you manage to web someone, theres a good chance they will coast out of your web with their momentum. Could ya define 'ridiculous ranges'? Because I dont recall anywhere in my previous posts where i've advocated that. IMO the best soulution is a set of skills similar to missiles, that could increase the web range, effectiveness and other peramters. But like missiles would take lots of extra time to make really good, put the time in, and yea, your KILLER with a web, dont, and it wouldnt be anywhere near as uber....? ( the pro nano guys are scared by this thread, its funny )
Ancy Denaries Caldari Under Heavy Fire	Posted - 2008.07.17 09:04:00 - [55] Originally by: JVol Originally by: Endless Subversion Not supported. It's an awful idea. Webbing is already borderline broken for how insanely powerful it is, the last thing eve needs is everyone able to web at ridiculous ranges. WTF game are YOU playing? HOW is it borderline broken? They cant reach any ship that orbits them atm? lol You have to land ONTOP of anyone you want to web currently, and even IF you manage to web someone, theres a good chance they will coast out of your web with their momentum. Could ya define 'ridiculous ranges'? Because I dont recall anywhere in my previous posts where i've advocated that. IMO the best soulution is a set of skills similar to missiles, that could increase the web range, effectiveness and other peramters. But like missiles would take lots of extra time to make really good, put the time in, and yea, your KILLER with a web, dont, and it wouldnt be anywhere near as uber....? ( the pro nano guys are scared by this thread, its funny ) It's borderline broken because of it's on/off behaviour. Either you are outside webrange and fighting (talking about ANY ship now, not just nanos) or you are webbed and dead.
Jaketh Ivanes Amarr Imperial Servants	Posted - 2008.07.17 10:38:00 - [56] I havn't read all the posts and replies. But instead of concentrating on web vs speed, how about looking into tracking enhancers? Say you have hvy beams on a ship. They can, with tracking enhancers, hit a nano stabber at 15km. Below, the chance is just to low, but here comes the web. This puts the Nano boat in a difficult, but not impossible, situation of having to stay in the 10-15km orbit (or 13-15 with heat). Anyways, sorry if this is a double post
Zikka Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn	Posted - 2008.07.17 11:58:00 - [57] Here is an idea for you. Take tractor beams (or maybe a new version of them) and have them be usable on ships as well as wrecks/cans. It gives those ships an acceleration towards you of 500 m/s (smaller ships affected more than big). A couple of tractor beams would pull them into range of the web and then lets a normal web take effect. Naturally they could fly against the tractor beam but it does make it harder for them to get away from you and multiple tractors would become nasty but you are giving up high slots to achieve that. This also gives Marauders a role in PvP.
Sweet Rosella	Posted - 2008.07.17 12:14:00 - [58] If you improve the webber your need to improve minmatar ships in some way, as these are the origianl nano ship's. damage, speed and not built very well with chicken wire and sellotape. Once caught they dont live very long. <img src="http://sigs.griefwatch.net/index.php?kb=spydr&name=Sweet+Rosella&template=red">
Darco Karim	Posted - 2008.07.17 12:19:00 - [59] Edited by: Darco Karim on 17/07/2008 12:23:11 Originally by: Zikka Here is an idea for you. Take tractor beams (or maybe a new version of them) and have them be usable on ships as well as wrecks/cans. It gives those ships an acceleration towards you of 500 m/s (smaller ships affected more than big). A couple of tractor beams would pull them into range of the web and then lets a normal web take effect. Naturally they could fly against the tractor beam but it does make it harder for them to get away from you and multiple tractors would become nasty but you are giving up high slots to achieve that. This also gives Marauders a role in PvP. marauders do have a role, armor repping awsome for turtal gans, but @ 600 mill a pop would you take 1. Tractor beams sounds good, add the 2 masses of the ships to gether and do maths with the size of engine systems ie mwd or AB, and who ever got the most power can fly whilst draggin the other about. so say a frig has tractor beamed a bs and the bs has bigger thrust then the bs will pull the frig, but if a cruiser tractor beams a bs and has mwd it will pull the bs, and olny 1 ship can lock a tractor on target same as with cans.
Seriya Caldari FIRMA	Posted - 2008.07.17 12:44:00 - [60] Webbing is a difficult subject because webbing is possibly the most crippling thing in the game (on a par with ECM IMO; just as ECM stops you doing anything to anyone, webbing stops you getting away from anyone.) No, a tanked ship can't force it's nano version to stay and fight to the death but a nano version often can't kill the tanked version either, so it's a trade-off. Long-range 90% webs would be really silly - in fact Rapiers and Huginns ARE really silly. These ships don't just affect nano***s, they cripple every exit strategy from a Battleship trying to get to a gate to a Carrier heading for a POS shield to a Battlecruiser trying to get to docking range on a station. If we all had highly efficient, long-range webs then the only viable strategy would be to bring more, heavier ships, every time. On a side-note, the current faction webs scale really badly; the 11km web has a 60% effectiveness and the 15km web has a 90% effectiveness, this would be far better balanced if it scaled the other way around and a choice had to be made between velocity reduction and web range. I would however be in favour of a long range web (perhaps ~40km) that gave a minor speed reduction (perhaps -25%) - these wouldn't be so horribly crippling to anyone but 2-3 of these would vastly diminish the effectiveness of any nano setup.
Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2008.07.17 13:33:00 - [61] webs are not supposed to counter nanos, face the fact it is time to thing outside the box and use braincells! dont be lazy, fit your ships against nano fits. you can even fit a raven against nanos but you have to use your braincells to do so! good luck using your brain too bad the average eve player has none
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.07.17 23:39:00 - [62] Originally by: Endless Subversion Not supported. It's an awful idea. Webbing is already borderline broken for how insanely powerful it is, the last thing eve needs is everyone able to web at ridiculous ranges. Agreed @OP, please use your brain for a minute and think about why everyone stays outside of webrange. I'll give you a hint: It's because slowing someone down to 10% of their speed with a single module is ridiculous in every way, and renders speed completely ineffective within it's range. The bottom line is webs simply have far too much stopping power. Giving them range on top of that stopping power is only going to break the game since it would be completely overpowered; increasing the range but drastically reducing the stopping power however seems more ideal. (ie: 30-40km webber w/ 20-30% speed reduction + bonus to strength on certain blasterboats) ...
JVol Amarr The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.07.18 00:06:00 - [63] Kinda funny that everyones SO concernd about the fate of their precoius nanos at the expence of EVERY other ship in the game. This OP wasnt ONLY about webs, its about the extended orbiting ranges now the norm in the game. Ranges have grown from 19km to 23-26km while webs were given 3km! lol.. comon, EVEN nano F*gs, should pick up on this short comming (doubt it tho). For those who keep flinging minor insults at me instead of discussing the WHOLE op, keep tryin, ive got skin like a freakin rhino..keep it on the tpoic at hand tho "Webs need to be brought up to speed with current orbiting ranges, period"
Flawliss Gallente Pilots of True Potential	Posted - 2008.07.19 12:29:00 - [64] Best web and speed suggestion i've ever seen: http://eve-search.com/thread/597162/page/1 Read it, love it. Enjoy
TheEndofTheWorld Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.07.19 15:12:00 - [65] Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 19/07/2008 15:14:09 Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 19/07/2008 15:13:49 Edited by: TheEndofTheWorld on 19/07/2008 15:12:44 Originally by: JVol Kinda funny that everyones SO concernd about the fate of their precoius nanos at the expence of EVERY other ship in the game. This OP wasnt ONLY about webs, its about the extended orbiting ranges now the norm in the game. Ranges have grown from 19km to 23-26km while webs were given 3km! lol.. comon, EVEN nano F*gs, should pick up on this short comming (doubt it tho). For those who keep flinging minor insults at me instead of discussing the WHOLE op, keep tryin, ive got skin like a freakin rhino..keep it on the tpoic at hand tho "Webs need to be brought up to speed with current orbiting ranges, period" You don't fly nanos, do you? You don't orbit at 23-26km with t2, you orbit at 15-20km... because having it too exact would mean that: 1. opponents can escape the scram range with (overheated) mwd, 2. getting to the excellent orbit takes time, and your target can simply warp off during that period 3. overheat destroys your modules fairly quickly Adding such webs would make nanos pointless AND nerf close range ships, ceptors and pretty much everything below BS. Instead ask for a nanonerf that doesn't brake the game on so many different levels.
Jade Mitch The Scope	Posted - 2008.07.19 15:57:00 - [66] Edited by: Jade Mitch on 19/07/2008 16:01:13 Nanos just need an agility penalty. Webs need a complete overhaul. They should be high powered launcher modules that work like missile bays only manufacturing their own ammo from cap energy. Shoot a self guiding energy ball at a ship while it's in range. The ball sticks to the ship and slows it down even as it drifts out of range. Then you can catch up to it and shoot again, if necessary. Each charge can last a few seconds and skills would increase both range and effectiveness of the charges.
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.07.20 11:38:00 - [67] Originally by: Nikita Alterana to be able to destroy an expensively fit ship with one relatively cheap module is rather imbalanced in itself No it isn't. We'll be arguing next that we ought to have modules or ship fits that allow people to warp away saving their expensive ship from the evil cheap warp scramblers.... Oh wait.... Funnily enough, CCP have on several occasions made a point of saying that new or old, rich or poor, you can still win fights in EVE. I for one do not want EVE to go the way of WoW, where just because you're a 4 year old player with lots of money (equivalent of grinding to level 70) you can beat everyone else due to expensive ships. Personally I get a little tired of the incessant back and forth about nano-ships. One side claims they're invulnerable (they're not, but they can run away well), the other side claims there are loads of counters (there aren't, unless you call a counter making it run away, see above - killing them takes specific stuff, and that's a big red flag when it comes to game design). CCP changed WCS because they 'want players to commit to fights'. Address nano from that perspective and we might achieve something. Originally by: Marcus Gideon So why not leave Webs as they are, with a nice hindering effect on ships being pushed through space harder. And make Scramblers have the same effect on an MWD jumping you ahead a few meters. Even your basic Disruptor, which may or may not be useful at a Gate Camp, can affect 24km out. I think that'd be plenty of distance to zap that nasty Inty and take it out. I still like this one, though that 'nasty inty' might feel about it differently when the only thing keeping it alive is speed. ABs would need some serious work to allow this to work, which if you're not careful sends us right back where we started. So how about this: T2 frigs (yes, AFs as well) get a bonus to AB speed per level or a role bonus, thus ensuring that ABs can't be abused on the bigger ships. I still feel that ABs are a neglected black sheep that need an overhaul anyway, and it's about time they were useful in combat. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties...
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.07.20 11:58:00 - [68] Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 20/07/2008 11:59:37 Made a new post to cut down on the long text, as this is sort of separate. In essence I think the issue comes down to whether speed-tanking is appropriate, and on what ships. Note that nanos are not intended to speed tank though many can; the primary goal is to be able to run away from fights you can't win. Nanos evolved in 0.0 where it was/is the best way to avoid fights with huge blobs. Addressing the problem such that you can speed-tank but have to commit to the fight is tricky. Changing interceptors so that they can still go fast is one way, but we also have to consider MWD and AB usage more generally. In Marcus' proposal, fitting an AB lets you go fast unless webbed, fitting an MWD lets you go fast unless scrambled or webbed. Unfortunately, blaster boats need to get close to do anything at all. They therefore don't want to get webbed at 10km, and they don't want to get scrammed at 24km either. Relying on a pilot being dumb enough not to spot you doesn't sound that wise a career move. In the OP's proposal, webs can amongst other things go further, making the blaster boat's job that much harder. To be honest, I'd be tempted to integrate both ideas but with an additional component, that of falloff. I'd reduce the actual optimal range and have a long falloff with a reduction in speed damping the further out you go. Three people webbing or scramming you at range will still cut your speed down (thus nicely in line with the CCP 'a group of T1 frigs can still kill an expensive T2 ship'), and if you are in a blaster boat, you can get close and only be fully slowed once you hit their optimal range. After that, it's balance time to ensure it all works in terms of numbers, and I leave that to CCP. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties...
Adeena Torcfist Caldari Dark Underground Forces	Posted - 2008.07.21 21:37:00 - [69] a nice webbing moduel, using scripts, high slot only. actually mmight make caldari more effective in PvP. a lot of caldari ships, i see have a useless high-slot anyways. Stealth bomber comes to mind when using dampners.
Akiba Penrose The Movement	Posted - 2008.07.21 22:51:00 - [70] Originally by: JVol Take any ship under BC class besides the obvious hugin/rapier/hyenna. Whatever ship you pick set one version up as a nanno and the other, well.. ANY way you want to counter the nano, and by counter I mean kill in one v one. So if its a zealot for example, one nano, the other how ever you choose. The slower ships will always have problem killing faster ships. To fix this all the ships in eve has to have the same speed. Never gonna happend. A tanked ship might have problems killing a nano ship because it can disengage, but the nanoship cant kill the tanked either. So a nano Zealot vs a tanked Zealot is a draw. (the sacriliege is the only ship i can think of where the nano version can kill the tanked one, because of the missile/speed combination) Btw, there is allready 13km web in the game. Should they be boosted to 17km then?
JVol Amarr The IMorral MAjority Imorral Dragons	Posted - 2008.07.26 08:24:00 - [71] Looks like webbers are viable once more when the new changes come thru! HOOYAaaa ccp!!

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.